I've been thinking about this thread (link goes to final post) and its idea of a "Capital Strike" a lot for the last couple weeks.

[gregtitus@social.coop]

@mcc An alternative explanation for much of the same results (which I think is more likely because it doesn't require the collective action of a capital strike), is that the investment is all real and intentional, it's just vastly misdirected from the point of view of general economic growth.

Billionaires don't care about their absolute wealth (they can't spend it all), but only about relative wealth (compared to their peers). And so all the investment gets misdirected into long shots, because getting lucky with those is the only way to significantly move up the rankings.

Investing in normal things can only get you a normal return. It's just treading water as far as they are concerned.

[mcc@mastodon.social]

I need to stress I have no interest in ascribing intentionality anywhere. I don't think CEOtier capitalists are thoughtful people, and they're currently investing hard in technologies that encourage thinking even less. You can explain this as money itself moving like water. An opportunity to steal appeared and it was taken. There was nothing to do with the money afterward, so it was expended in the only way capital systems can use it (build great golden idols rather than let it trickle downward)

[mcc@mastodon.social]

@BabblingGeek Should we treat "malice" and "rampant greed" as two different things? If so, why?

[bob@feed.hella.cheap]

@mcc if you want to play some games with CDOs and options you can probably do that but the "capital strike" thing seems very confused to me

[emaytch@mastodon.social]

@mcc the comparison of building AI to building golden idols is wow a comparison that i had not considered until i read it but now feels so natural im surprised i never did

[datarama@hachyderm.io]

@mcc (footnote: You know you grew up in a cultural backdrop where labour unions had *a lot* of institutional clout when you're aware of what a capital strike is because you learned about it in high school.)

[jenniferplusplus@hachyderm.io]

@mcc to be clear, yes, I believe it's intentional

That said, I've also thought about it a few times since then. I'm not sure strike is the appropriate diagnosis anymore. I think it has escalated

[mcc@mastodon.social]

@emaytch great monuments in space. it is no longer so expensive to build a great stone edifice, we have concrete. so to prove you are so exorbitantly wealthy you can expend it on a proof of your own wastefulness, you put your monuments in space. that is what the "data centers" are

[bob@feed.hella.cheap]

@mcc maybe start with getting the ontario teachers pension fund to stop putting money into datacenters in the emirates

[wrosecrans@mstdn.social]

@mcc I don't think intentionality really matters. Clearly a lot of the people dumping billions of their own dollars unto AI are true believers. Whether or not there is some group intentionally pushing for a capital strike behind them or not, the effect is the same so the model is useful.

[mcc@mastodon.social]

@bob I think it would be incredible if I could influence Ontario politics in any way

[bob@feed.hella.cheap]

@mcc literally they're bailing out private credit firms that are heavily invested in datacenters (and so is calpers) https://feed.hella.cheap/@bob/statuses/01KK72GFW7NRYE6Z0NEDAG6MYX

[rockpick@mastodon.social]

@mcc @BabblingGeek rampant greed is like a scaled version of prioritizing your own interests. It is to a degree relatable, I mean "I" am prioritizing my own interests a lot of the time. Malice is more like sabotaging others, without necessarily gaining something out of it. I would very much prefer to work or deal with a rampantly greedy person than a malicious one. Some people are both...

[alter_kaker@hachyderm.io]

@mcc practically? Probably not. That's why greed is explicitly named as wicked in at least some faith traditions.*
But philosophically I reckon those are different domains. Unless you state categorically that greed is evil, one can consider it orthogonal to ethics, and therefore not malicious (which is an ethical term afai understand).

* Ex. https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Pirkei_Avot.5.10

@BabblingGeek

[darkling@mstdn.social]

@mcc @emaytch Only if we can seal Elon Musk in one for all eternity.

[mcc@mastodon.social]

@wrosecrans I don't think intentionality would look like a conscious decision or conspiracy. I think it would look like "the masses are useless eaters, so let's instead put the money into creating something that will serve me better in future than those filthy *humans* who keep striking and accusing me of sexual harassment". You don't need to say it out loud, if you can exist in a space that's awash in such unvoiced sentiment (altho some ppl seemed happy to voice ideas like that to, uh, Epstein)

[mcc@mastodon.social]

@bob i am sad to say i am unsurprised about this

[bob@feed.hella.cheap]

@mcc I think a thing that's really important that most people don't understand is that in the current era almost all capital isn't directed by capitalists, it's directed by PMC managers

[mcc@mastodon.social]

@bob is the suggestion here that "PMC"s do not have ideology

[bob@feed.hella.cheap]

@mcc oh no they absolutely do but it isn't the one that marxists traditionally ascribe to capital